Tag Archives: defense policy

Security and Ebola

Posted on by
2

The head of the CDC said Saturday that imposing a travel ban between the US and West African countries dealing with the Ebola virus could worsen the outbreak that has killed over 3,000 people in five countries.

“Though we might wish we can seal ourselves off from the world, there are Americans who have the right of return and many other people that have the right to enter this country,” Dr Thomas Frieden told a press conference. “We’re not going to be able to get to zero risk no matter what we do unless we control the outbreak in West Africa.”

This is carefully, cynically mendacious. “Americans who have the right of return” from western Africa are few, and they’re easily controlled at the point of departure until they can be shown to be Ebola-free. Those infected can be brought back under suitable controls, as has already been demonstrated.

Moreover, there are not at all very “many other people that have the right to enter this country;” that’s the point of border control: no nation has an obligation to let any non-citizen enter, except as that nation sees fit.

Frieden compounded his…error…with this:

We really need to be clear that we don’t inadvertently increase the risk to people in this country by making it harder for us to respond to the needs in those countries by making it harder to get assistance in and therefore those outbreaks would become worse, go on longer, and paradoxically, something that we did to try and protect ourselves might actually increase our risk.

This is more nonsense. A travel ban would be on travel from western Africa, not to it. Even were such a ban to include to western Africa, exceptions for humanitarian purposes are easily defined.

We don’t get to zero risk by restricting travel from enemy nations during time of war, either, until we control and terminate on our terms the war at its source; however, we routinely and effectively reduce risk by such restrictions. So it is here. Ebola isn’t a shooting war, but it is a war against a virus that has devastating effect wherever it invades. Travel restrictions would significantly reduce risk.

Another VA Problem

Posted on by
1

This one, though, isn’t primarily the Veterans Affair’s doing.

Veterans at the Shreveport, LA, Veterans Administration hospital have been going without toothbrushes, toothpaste, pajamas, sheets, and blankets while department officials spend money on new Canadian-made furniture, televisions to run public service announcements and solar panels….

Some specifics:

According to the VA, the department spent $74,412 on 24 flat screen TVs for “patient/employee information”—one 50 inches wide and the others 42 inches. The furniture cost $134,082, and the solar project was approximately $3 million.

This is shameful, but this falls on Congress. Under Federal funding rules, capital equipment—the TVs, solar, etc—fall into one funding category, and supplies—toothbrushes and paste, blankets, etc—fall into a separate category. Under those same rules, the VA (and any other agency whose funding falls into different categories) cannot take funds from, say, capital equipment, and spend it on, say, supplies. It gets even more bureaucratic than that. Agencies can’t reallocate capital expenses from one capital item to another: the VA can’t, for instance, take some of those $3 million from solar and buy more TVs with it. Only Congress can authorize such reallocations.

No, Congress must answer for this misallocation. That it’s what the VA asked for in its budget request may be true, but Congress—that collection of our directly elected representatives—isn’t supposed to be a rubber stamp for every request for money that wanders by. It’s our money Congress is allocating, not Congress’ and not the VA’s.

It’s true enough that the VA could have—should have—gone to Congress and asked for a reallocation on recognition of the supply funding shortfall. That it seems not to have is an internal VA problem that supports my argument for disbanding the VA and using the budget to fund vouchers sent directly to our veterans.

There are other problems described at the Watchdog.org link above that are entirely within the VA’s ability to correct, but this one is not.

Arms Control and the Terrorists

Posted on by
Reply

The Iranian government appears to be steadily leveraging the Islamic State crisis by dangling the possibility of cooperation against the terror group in exchange for a favorable deal on its nuclear program….

And

Iranian negotiators wanted to see more flexibility on the nuclear issue, in exchange for working with the US and its allies to tackle the Islamic State threat.

And

[Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani, in his U.N. address on Thursday, made clear Iran’s cooperation in addressing terror threats hinges on the outcome of ongoing nuclear talks – as he once again urged other nations to drop what he described as “excessive demands.”

Rouhani said a deal could mark the “beginning of multilateral cooperation” and allow for “greater focus on some very important regional issues such as combating violence and extremism.”

In a press conference on Friday, when asked about a possible trade-off, Rouhani said that a nuclear deal could lead to “trust-building” and “cooperation” between the U.S. and Iran.

Of course, it’s not true until it’s been officially denied. For instance, by President Barack Obama, through his Press Secretary Josh Earnest:

The United States will not be in a position of trading aspects of Iran’s nuclear program to secure commitments to take on ISIL.

Hmm….

A Geopolitical Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

…if The Wall Street Journal‘s interpretation is accurate, and a lack of political courage [emphasis added].

A solution to the Ukraine crisis is still far off, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on Saturday, as his Russian counterpart accused the West of seeking to create chaos in the Kremlin’s geographic sphere.

And

Steinmeier said that a few weeks ago “we were on the brink of direct confrontation” between Russian and Ukrainian armed forces but that diplomacy had “prevented the worst.” However, he said, “I am under no illusion. A political solution is still a long way off.”

Last things first. Diplomacy has “prevented the worst?” Only if the worst is taken as the conquering and occupation of Ukraine as a whole, which is not an implausible view. However, diplomacy has failed to prevent the near-worst: Russian occupation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, together with a drive along Ukraine’s Sea of Azov coast with a view toward opening a land route to occupied Crimea, solidifying militarily the occupation.

Diplomacy alone—talking alone—can achieve very little beyond abject acceptance of these military facts. Diplomacy, to have any material effect, must be backed by, must be animated by, force—economic, military, and/or their combination. To date, there has been no force backing the West’s…diplomacy. The West has been too timid even to apply economic force against the Russians, only pin pricks that give western leaders a means of comforting themselves through the night.

Now to this:

[Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov] reiterated the conditions Moscow requires for the crisis to be resolved, including acceptance of Ukraine as a “neutral and non-bloc country,” meaning one that would remain outside of the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

This brings us back to the first thing. Neither Ukraine, nor any other of the nations bordering on Russia, belong in any way to Russia or to “the Kremlin’s geographic sphere.” These are sovereign nations, and they’re free to chart their own course—including aligning themselves with the West, joining the prosperity of Western free market economics, even taking in the essential sovereignty of a people over their government. No matter how uncomfortable this might make Russia.

And no, Mr Lavrov, not all cultures are equal, and neither are all polities morally equivalent.

A Little Bit About Fighting

Posted on by
Reply

This came up a while ago from Bing West’s book, The Wrong War.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm Michael Mullen, was fond of saying, “we can’t kill our way to victory.” That was political drivel. If the Taliban weren’t killing people, there wouldn’t be 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan. It was comparable to a police chief saying, “Arrests are not the solution to crime”—a vacuity sure to result in fewer arrests. War is centered on killing. The grunts knew that, even if their own generals did not. Killing was not the solution, but it was the means to the solution.

It’s still true, and it’s especially applicable today as the Obama administration pays lip service to taking on ISIS. We need to take this war seriously, and set about doing a couple of things:

  • getting serious about fighting—and killing—these terrorists, rather than just taking potshots from the air
  • repairing our reputation with our friends, allies, and enemies so that we can get a real coalition going and take the fight to these terrorists, on the ground as well as from the air.

It’s also applicable today as so many on the Left argue that this isn’t a war we should be fighting, it’s a wrong war. Never mind that if we don’t fight today, there, the terrorists will force us to fight tomorrow, here.

The time for talking is long past. Three administrations have tried talking, including the present one for six interminable years. Words don’t stop terrorists.